Ever more efficient use of channel bandwidth is a never-ending goal of telecommunications systems. As technology evolves, from analog signals over copper wires, to digital wireless and optical fiber networks, so too does the bandwidth, and thus both the opportunities and challenges of the problem.
One such challenge arises from the different transport protocols and standards in use. For example, some protocols (such as the Ethernet) specify asynchronous transmission, while others, such as the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) and Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) standards, rely on tight synchronization. Still other systems are designed according to one of the Plesiochronous (from Greek plesio+chronos, meaning “near time”) Digital Hierarchy (PDH) standards, in which different parts of the telecommunications system are almost synchronised, that is, are synchronized to within some predetermined acceptable deviation.
Common for these standards is that each specifies transmission of data (including voice data) as a series of “frames” with a fixed framing format. Some widespread formats are commonly designated T1 (used mostly in North America and parts of Asia), the faster E1 (2.048 Mbits/s PDH serial bitstream), E2 and E3 (34.368 Mbits/s PDH serial bitstream), formats (used in Europe and most of the rest of the world), as well as some others found mostly in Japan. One result of this, though, is that according any one of these framing formats, it is not feasible to combine, for example, PDH and Ethernet traffic in a single frame structure.
Some attempts to alleviate this problem are themselves part of newer standards. For example, the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) has specified standards for multiplexing four E1s into a single E2 in ITU-T Rec. G.742, and for multiplexing four E2s into a single E3 in ITU-T Rec. G.751. Both of these, by definition, set limits on the number of E1 s or E2s that can be transmitted over a composite rate.
United States Published Patent Application No. 2003/0035445 A1, published 20 Feb. 2003 and entitled “Integrated Ethernet and PDH/SDH/SONET Communication System” discloses a communication system for communicating Ethernet and PDH/SDH/SONET data using time division multiplexing (TDM) techniques from an Ethernet unit. One drawback of this system is that it presupposes an Ethernet unit and a transceiver, with only Ethernet traffic on the packet interface.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,075,952, issued in the name of Torma, et al. on 11 Jul. 2005 and entitled “Multiplexing in a PDH Telecommunications Network” specifies a method for multiplexing “at least one traffic source from a group in which a number of PCM signals constitutes a first traffic source and a number of packet data streams constitutes a second traffic source.” The disclosed method is specifically intended for transferring Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) traffic through a PDH network. One disadvantage of this method that it operates with a relatively coarse granularity, at the level of Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) on a first interface, which may be as low as 64 kbit/s instead of 2.048 Mbit/s or even just 1.544 Mbit/s. Another disadvantage is that it requires each PCM signal to be configured and allocated to a specific portion of the frame; for large frames, this leads to a great deal of configuration data.
EP 0428407 discloses a communication link in a communication network which dynamically allocates bandwidth to different channels, where at least three different types of information may be carried by these channels. The link carries multiple types of information in a multiplexed manner.
Another drawback of both of these known systems is that they provide no possibility for adaptive modulation, that is, the rate on the packet stream cannot change without reconfiguration of the frame structure. This lack of flexibility can lead to a needless loss of traffic.